Re: [PATCH 0/8] en/object-list-with-pathspec v4

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 11, 2010, 17:19 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTimEcrFEGZ3RYXsByLT275=X0E-D29Sio3pOjH6T@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1283961023-4491-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com>

Hi,

2010/9/8 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>:

Show 7 quoted lines

> OK it's good enough now. I no longer use struct exclude_list.
> Its name does not really match the semantics.
>
> The last two patches implement tree exclusion and are not meant
> for submission to en/object-list-with-pathspec. I wanted to see
> if the new struct was extensible. And I need tree exclusion anyway
> in my narrow clone.

Perhaps the last two patches should be split off and submitted separately? I really like your work here to add negated pathspecs; they'll be really helpful for me. However, as you say, they are really moving into a different topic.

I've reviewed and tested patches 1-4 of this series, and they look good to me. (Am I supposed to add a Reviewed-by and Tested-by or an Acked-by for these? Still not sure what the rules are there). Patches 5-6 are already part of pu (modulo the return of tree_entry(), which is nice) and already have my signoff, so I don't need to comment on those further.

I've got some comments for patches 7 & 8, which I think may need a little more work; I'll add them to the individual emails.

Elijah